Dept. of Education v. Brown (22-535)

argument 22-535

Dept. of Education v. Brown

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 15m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the opening argument and main issue in Dept. of Education v. Brown?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument. We'll continue argument in Case 22-535, Department of Education v. Brown. Welcome back.

Elizabeth B. Prelogar 0:11

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Across the board, Brown and Taylor's arguments in this case run counter to precedent and principle. On standing, respondents' asserted injury is a complete mismatch for the relief they seek. They claim to want greater loan forgiveness than the plan provides, but they ask this court to hold that the HEROES Act doesn't authorize loan forgiveness at all. A win on that theory would mean that no one could get any HEROES Act relief, not Brown, who would get nothing for herself, not Taylor, who would lose $10,000, and not any of the millions of borrowers who need this critical relief. Respondents lack standing to seek that result. Parties cannot go to court to make themselves and everyone else worse off.

Elizabeth B. Prelogar 1:00

To get around that problem, Brown and Taylor gesture at the idea that if the Secretary can't act under the HEROES Act, he might consider making an entirely different decision to grant debt relief under the Education Act. But on the merits, respondents are broadly attacking the whole idea of providing loan forgiveness under any executive action. They never explain why they think the Secretary could provide broader relief to even more borrowers under the Education Act. And in any event, this Court has never endorsed that kind of circuitous route to standing. A plaintiff who isn't injured by agency action can't establish standing by speculating that invalidating that action might prompt the agency to take an entirely different action under a different statute.

Elizabeth B. Prelogar 1:46

If the Court reaches the merits, it should reject Respondent's claim. They argue the plan is unlawful because the Secretary didn't use certain rulemaking procedures. But Congress specifically exempted the Secretary from following those procedures when he issues waivers and modifications under the HEROES Act. Respondent's procedural claim fails in light of that clear statutory exemption. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:11

Are there any instances in which you would have procedural standing?

Elizabeth B. Prelogar 2:17

So I think that if they wanted to argue that the Secretary should have reconsidered his decision under the HEROES Act to grant broader relief, then it's possible that they could have raised both a procedural claim and a substantive claim, because at that point their injury would be redressable. They would be saying that the Secretary drew arbitrary lines, that the plan should be expanded to include them and to provide relief to them, and that would be a very straightforward route to making the arguments if what they really want is loan forgiveness. But instead, their whole argument here is that the secretary can't give them or anyone else relief under the HEROES Act. And when you look at it that way, there is no case that we've been able to find.

Elizabeth B. Prelogar 2:53

And we've really tried to boil the oceans here. that could plausibly support that theory of procedural injury. It would blow open the doors to asserting Article III injury when you are not directly affected by an agency action, and by your own lights, you can't stand to benefit from any ruling on that agency action merely because you think that if you can block it, you could, the agency might reach out and look for some other source of authority to regulate and make a new action.

Elena Kagan 3:19

This action has nothing to do with their right if, they thought it was permissible to seek relief under the Education Act, correct?

Elizabeth B. Prelogar 3:27

That's correct. It's a totally different source of authority. If they want relief under the Education Act, there are provisions where they can file a petition for rulemaking and ask for that relief right now. And it's not as though these are mutually exclusive sources of authority. The Education Act is not directed to national emergencies. It's not it's an independent source of authority here, unlike the HEROES Act, which is the action they're challenging that's specifically focused on this agency, this national emergency situation.